Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday September 09, 2003 @10:05PM
from the can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

Murdock037 writes "It looks like the RIAA has rushed to settle with 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, after serving her with a lawsuit on Monday. It looks like her single mother will be paying a $2,000 fine to the RIAA for her daughter's song-swapping, which they had thought was legal. Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.' What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones."

The article is laden with sickly quotes about how "we're so sorry we never knew it was bad" but I want to respond to this in particular:

they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services

I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?" Please just consider this:

For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account [emusic.com] , and in the first 30 minutes downloaded this $230 CD boxed set [amazon.com] in MP3 format - free of DRM and ready to play wherever I want. I also snagged all the George Carlin CDs just because they were top downloads, but I'm also having fun perusing their classical music selections.

While I am hopelessly out of touch with the popular music scene, having not purchased a CD in over three years, I will admit that the stuff on emusic is not the kind of thing I would otherwise have picked up in a CD store. But I am VERY satisfied with what they have.. whatever latent urge I once had to go out and buy a CD has been completely erased.

So give the girl a break. She may come off as an idiot, but let's not pretend that $29.99 is a lot to pay for a few gigs of zeroes and ones.

I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?"

Honestly, I don't think they really gave it too much thought. I mean, I doubt most non-geek types who do use peer-to-peer file sharing systems give the whole subject more than a passing thought. Though as others have mentioned, I'd be interested to know exactly what kind of volume of music the RIAA claims this 12-year-old girl shared to garner herself one of 200-some-odd lawsuits, supposedly aimed at "top" file-sharers.

I think there is a serious misconception of treating downloading vs sharing. I thought that RIAA is supposed to go after people who copy their bought CDs and share them publicly. In general RIAA must leave downloaders alone unless there is a solid evidence of the fact of downloading the illegally shared music knowing that it is illegal.

There is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk if there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample. Or even a piece of a free music, I don't know. Again, unless the only way to download it was to press "Agree" button on a "Terms" page. But if I found a direct link to MP3 than there is no way I am informed that it is illigal to download this particular file - there are tons of legally free music on internet, how should I know which one is legal for downloading and which one is not?

The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content has some legal warning and I am forced to agree as the only way to get the content and I break the agreement - than I did something illegal. Otherwise - EVERYTHING I download is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

IMHO, I am not supposed to do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings that I have to agree in order to get the content. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me. Of course, the content provider is the person published the content, not the author of web-site software and not a hosting company.

Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if I did not know any legal nature of the file from the first place? Thus, the only person should be charged for illegal publishing and sharing and downloading must be the person who's leased the content (from RIAA) by signing EULA, viloated that EULA by ripping off the content and publishing it at first time WITHOUT providing a proper legal disclaimer in a way that I cannot get the content without reading AND agreeing that disclaimer.

Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if such defence is failed - change the constitution which would be failed to protect us from RIAA abuse.

Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.

In most states here in the US, this only really applies to adults in practice. A judge can throw out most juvinile cases if he/she thinks the child learning the lesson that an action was a crime is enough punishment. This is one of the reasons that juvinile courts are seperate from adult courts and is the theory behind being "tried as an adult".

I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?

We're talking a 12 year old girl who is book smart. That doesn't mean she has common sense. Common sense might make you go "hmmm" but when you can get 12 CD's for just a penny, Kazaa could easily confuse a 12 year old into thinking that she could have unlimited downloads for $29.95.

I don't think she's stupid. In fact I think most people are unaware that this is an illegal activity, especially if they are paying for a service.

"I don't think she's stupid. In fact I think most people are unaware that this is an illegal activity, especially if they are paying for a service."

One of the arguments I've made all along is that the RIAA has completely failed to educate people on this topic. You're supposed to know what copyright is and how it works to know you can't do that. Is a 12 year old supposed to know that? Is the average Joe even supposed to know? Maybe. But consider this:

- Radio is free. Buy a set, or build your own, and you get music.

- Radio makes money from ad revenue. So radio's not exactly begging you to go buy CDs.

- A logical conclusion can be drawn that the purpose of buying a CD is the convenience of playing a song whenever you want. Nobody ever though of buying a CD as a license to hear the song!

- When you rent a movie, it's spelled out for you in that FBI warning what you can and cannot do with a movie. You can't show it publically, for example. (I remember noticing that in grade school on a rainy day when they decided to show us Star Wars.) CD's have no such warning.

- Computers come with CD-Roms, which are perfect for putting CDs into.

- Blank Audio CD's are sold as audio CDs.

One has to ask, how's the general populace supposed to know what's happening here? How're they supposed to know it's 'wrong'? Why did the RIAA wait until it had blown out of proportion to start all this shit?

If they want my sympathy, they can forget it. At this point, even if they come out with a great MP3 service, I really don't think I can drag myself to get my credit card out. Taking $2,000 from a 12 year old girl who couldn't possibly have known better? And the protestors think Nike is bad?

Um, no. Vivendi Universal, owner of emusic, also owns Universal Records, an RIAA member [riaa.com]. In fact, the first label I recognized on that RIAA membership roster, 4AD, also appears on emusic [emusic.com]. For that matter, the label for the box set you mention downloading is also an RIAA member. You may not be landing as much cash in their pockets, but it's not "RIAA-free" by any means.

To add my own rant, I should mention that emusic is the only company that has ever flatly stolen my money. (Partial details here [ulman.net] if you're interested.) As much as I liked the service for 3 days, I'd say you should be wary of these guys. The Better Business Bureau record [bbb.org] on emusic pretty well supports this point, but (to my mind) it doesn't really emphasize the point enough.

Jesus Christ, man. You took a feedbag to the all-you-can-eat buffet, and pitched a fit when they decided to only let you take one plate of food at a time. 1800 files in how many days? You had to have been running an automatic downloader.

I mean, I sympathize to an extent, but if the contract doesn't mention the method of download, you're not covered one way or the other. Your ad absurdum argument re: spyware, etc., on the download service doesn't really apply. If you'd made an argument about the service being Windows-dependent (if the DM's ActiveX or a Windows executable), that may have had some wings. However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.

How many people get the feeling that the whole thing was orchestrated by the RIAA and this little girl is going to get a very big check a few months down the road when this all dies off?

Think about it. Public outrage aside, the way this thing ended was very calculated. If they had in fact "Accidentally" sued her, they would have simply dropped the charges, as would be the PR thing to do to quickly clean up a mess

But instead, this girl whose family is living in the projects is instead going to pony up $2000 and still say good things about the RIAA?

Plus, with the way this ended, it gives the RIAA and additional "Fear Factor" where it will get folks who don't have a clue in them to say to themselves "If they will even stoop to squeezing out 2 grand of a lil' ol' girl, what chance do I stand?"

It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?

Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again. (Since I normally buy about 50 a year, this should even the score on this despicable incident by 2008.)

Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.

This actually isn't such a bad idea. I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative? See, I don't want to just stop listening to music. But I want to listen to music by artists that aren't under the RIAA. Anyone know of such a site, or have any plans to put one together?

Site that I learned about recently, but have yet to buy anything from em cd baby [cdbaby.com]. Looks to be pretty nice, I listened to some of the samples, but I've been so busy with other junk that I haven't actually decided on what to buy.:)

Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING. "Stealing" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was laefully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal.

Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?

What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.

This is too nice and neat. Think about it for a minute and consider the chance of this actually happening. Notice there hasn't been any press releases about other settlements.

The RIAA is going too far in trying to protect and aging and useless distribution method.

> Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?

> What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.

All the more reason to send her money. Think of the karma obtainable by embarrassing them over a non-existent situation!

I don't care if I send her ten bucks she doesn't deserve, if the media picks up on it and runs a heart-warming story about how a bunch of geeks came to the aid of a poor kid being abused by a big bully trade organization. If anyone pipes up and blows the true story, all the better.

It's theft. It's sad that it took the RIAA prosecuting people to wake up the mass market to the facts even after years of telling people it was theft.

Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT THEFT. "Theft" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was lawfully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal. You can argue that it's "as bad as theft" all day if you want and I won't care, but claiming copyright infringement is the same as theft is moronic. This stuff is all defined by law, and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. What don't you understand about that?

What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.

But why? To prevent looking like a bully? They still do. If they really wanted to avoid a PR problem why not simply not sue her?

Just because they get the subpoena doesn't mean they have to follow up on it.

Mark my words, one of these days one of those subpoenas will find a lawmaker's kid on the other end, and the RIAA will run away from that court room as fast as they can.

While I'm against downloading and sharing of music I think that this will really screw the music companies in the long run. One of the first rules of business is not to make your cusotmers your enemy. There is a percentage that only steals and never buys, but a lot of people who download end buying the CD. This may piss them off enough that they may look to other forms of entertainment or look at used CD's.

You might find this interesting then. Earlier today, the following was posted to a popular discussion forum for music industry professionals:

My source in Manhattan says the kid is a fake. A child actress hired by the RIAA in order to spook other people into fast settlements.

We're talking about an industry that pays people to call TRL. An industry that hires kids to stand outside the windows of MTV to wave signs about how they are devoted to an unknown act. They are not above faking an out of court settlement in order to make the kids think that this is the easiest thing for them to do.

You should buy music, just not RIAA. Metropolis Records, who carries Electronic Body Music, Industrial Dance Music, and other amazing types of music, aren't members of the RIAA.

They have the kind of music you hear in "good" clubs, and on movies. It's a billion times better than top 40 crap.

A Different Drum Records (http://www.adifferentdrum.com/) for synthpop, Niliaihah Records (http://www.nilaihah.com/) for some other EBM/darkwave...

There's a ton of other non-RIAA music out there. Go listen to Covenant's song "We Stand Alone" off of "Northern Lights". The Azonic's "Progression" (oh my god can she sing). DeVision "Dinner Without Grace". Some of those are a bit old, but will give you a good taste of what is out there. I haven't listened to the "radio" for music for nearly three years now.

I used to buy a lot of CDs but, gradually, came to resent both the inflated prices here in Europe and the attitude of the music industry to their customers. So, I stopped buying CDs for myself.

I continued, however, buying CDs as gifts for others; it's so easy to order them online and have them sent to a friend/relative/the girl of the moment with a nice message. Everyone likes music whereas if you send a book it probably won't, with the best intentions in the world, actually get read.

But no more. I am now on an official boycott, the RIAA is getting no more money from me.

I am sickened by the way they singled out a family living in a project was singled out(and I'm aware of how much tougher it is to be poor in America).

I am appalled the obvious way in which, as soon as they saw it turning into a PR nightmare, they quickly arranged some sort of deal and concocted these statements from the mother. The whole thing stinks.

Pity the kid who's about to become the only teenager in her neighborhood who's ability to explore new music is stunted by specific legal agreement.

Wouldn't they have been able to challenge this lawsuit with a great deal of ease by pointing out that the RIAA illegally collected information about the online habits of someone under 13? If I'm correct the Child Online Protection Act prohibits collection of information about online behavior for those under 13 without parental consent.

I can't imagine that many artists the RIAA represents are happy with some of the RIAA's behavior. I am sure they are having some of the same reactions that many folks have with Clippy......"Stop trying to help me!!!"

Do not believe the lies. The RIAA did not settle. The RIAA has achieved complete victory against the file swaping aggressors. Brianna LaHara martyred herself upon our ranks of lawyers. Our dogs will eat her stomach while our women beat her face with their shoes.

remember the flap about microsoft auditing that oregon school district(sorry, no link). talk about shortsighted. now they got open source bills on the docket in the legislature and microsoft had to do a huge about face. this will hurt the riaa because it will show what a bunch of thugs they really are. this will turn the public against them. if they were hitting real pirates, i.e., those burning and selling bootleg cd's, i'd say more power to them, but hammering a twelve year old girl. any sympathy they would have gotten is shot out the window now.

Come on, I'm waiting for someone who doesn't *OWN* or *USE* a computer to get sued.

Wait no longer! A quote from this article [www.cbc.ca] (emphasis mine):

The first crop of lawsuits included a Texas grandfather who didn't even know he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press. Durwood Pickle said his teenage grandchildren downloaded the music onto his computer during visits to his home.

"I'm not a computer-type person," the 71-year-old Pickle told AP. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"

I wouldn't say "another compact disc" because not ALL CDs created have something to do with the RIAA. I am always glad to purchase CDs at shows from bands themselves. There is no better way to really give back to the music community then helping a band pay for gas to get home (:

I'd just like to point out that your response shows a general lack of understanding of the issue AND actually serves to back up the RIAA's mission.

From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue. I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable future anyway.

If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:
1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.
2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.

Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)

My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.

Don't studies suggest that using abusive tactics with children only works for a short time, and then they just hate the abuser, permanently?

It looks like the RIAA has completely forgotten the value of a young, enthusiastic fan base can have on an artist's popularity. I'd think as cynical businessmen, they'd recognize that metric right off.

Even if Brianna and her single mother couldn't afford a single one of Britney's (or Artist X's) CD's, Britney and the RIAA are better off having Brianna talk to her friends about how great she is and the like, and sustaining the culture of interest around her. Which for music artists, is the primary thing generating their revenue, and it's something that works best for younger people. The Japanese comics industry knows this well.

For me as a 30-something, well, I can afford one of Britney's CD's, but I'd be adding no further value to her market mystique. I wouldn't be effectively an unpaid volunteer for Britney, as Brianna would probably be happy to be, were the RIAA not stomping on her.

Probably the most shocking quote to come out of Cary Sherman's mouth was this:

Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong, not because they will get caught. It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

I think there's a strong correlation between the way somebody acts, and the way they think others will act. For instance, I know somebody who is more or less a compulsive liar, and I know people who are honest to a fault. The liar is constantly accusing others of fibbing, whereas the more honest people only do so when there's good reason to. The same applies to a broad spectrum of human behaviour.

Anyway, I guess the point I am trying to make is that a comment like that isn't so surprising when it comes from an organisation that sneaks in "works for hire" alterations to the law, goes after children, sues college kids for billions of dollars, and generally acts in appalling ways. People who are of a low human nature expect others to be as well. There's no honour among thieves and all that.

I guess I can respond to this being a human, though it's not directly related to shoplifting.

I've found a number of lost wallets and misc items. My knee jerk responce is to find the owner as it sucks loosing money, credit cards, and misc bits of paper that are required to operate in today's world. Costco is the most common place I find abandoned purses and things, fortunatly these days they have mobile phones in them.

Later on I think, d'oh could have gotten free cash, perhaps a tank of gas, but the moral responce wins. This isn't a fear of getting caught, it's just doing the cool thing.

Rest assured, you weren't hurting artists. You were hurting some rich RIAA execuative who likely has billions of dollars to his or her name.

Imagine if the richest man in the world ordered a poor man to pay him a month's salary because the rich man felt his wealth was in jeopardy. Now, imagine this rich man had an army of slaves doing his bidding, who all work to make him money. Doesn't that sound silly? Well, that's what the RIAA.

The RIAA effectively takes music from artists and gives them slave wages for their music. When the RIAA takes music from artists, the artists no longer own it.

Since the RIAA owns the music, there's no way you can hurt the artist by downloading music. Only the RIAA hurts artists. Hopefully, people will keep downloading songs so the RIAA will go away!

Then why do the artists continue to sign up with the RIAA labels? Are you telling me there is a person on this planet that doesn't know that record companies screw artists? So are they stupid, or what? Even if we grant that new/unknown artists may need (and I'll get into that in a sec.) the RIAA backed labels for exposure, what's the excuse for acts with a successful record or two under their belt? It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently. Do you think a band like U2 needs their RIAA label to promote themselves now? Why is Phish signed up with Electra? None of these guys have figured out that by dealing directly with their fans, they might do better? Artists are in it for the love of the music right? At least the one's *you* listen to I'm sure.

And about that exposure thing I mentioned earlier...why do bands need the exposure that the siren-song of the Big Record Label offers? What's wrong with staying small, playing the local clubs, printing a few CDs and Tshirts and basically staying in control? Touching thousands with your music isn't enough, you just have to be on MTv's TRL with Carson Daley? What? It's a Bling Bling world I guess.

But, if that's what they want...go for it. I don't begrudge them one bit. It's a free country and they can do what they want with their music, even if that includes selling out all control to the Labels. But I won't feel sorry for them when the machine eats them up and spits them out not owning the shirt on their back. Not one bit. There's a lot of people getting screwed in this whole mess, the artists are the last ones I'll shed a tear for. THEY perpetuate this whole thing. Fuck them.

I'm a musician. I gig, I play music every day, I record music and I already own a large collection of CDs. Quite honestly, I haven't heard anything in pop music come out in the last five years, besides a very precious few artists, that I've thought was worth the $18 anyway. So it's no big loss to me.

If a new musician comes along whose music I feel I must have, I'll either purchase a CD with a friend and share ownership or I'll employ any of a number of methods available to me to get the music on my hard drive. But since most new music has been utter crap, and it's so rare that I ever hear anything that makes me feel I absolutely must have it at my fingertips, I don't expect this is going to be a big problem for me.

But I do have a big problem with giving another single dime to an industry that fines 12-year-olds in housing projects $2,000 for gay-for-display Britney Spears and nursery rhymes. It's comical, but it's also bullshit, and having been involved with the music industry before I can honestly say it's right in line with their standard operating procedure.

The normal recording contract is roughly 40-60 pages long. By contrast, a typical book publishing contract is 4-12 pages. Typical recording contracts tie up artists for advances, deny artists royalties on new technology media, and itemize costs well into the future of the artists career. The record industry operates like the mafia. So as far as I'm concerned, they can go straight to hell.

Yeah, I'll bet they settled in a day. Because the Brianna story was like the world walking in on the Devil raping a kid, so the RIAA tried to turn it into a finger wagging story.

They suck. I wish them all, to the last of them, the absolutely very worst things in life. Fuck 'em.

Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.

Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.

Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.

And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.

Granted, 12 year olds, especially girls, may listen to a lot of music. But I find it quite improbable that she could be among the top 0.0006%, once you look at all the college kids and 20 somethings, with far more free time on their hands, and far more varied music interests.

I'll bet even among the small community of/., she would not even in the top 2/3.

Of course it's due to that extra 100GB hard disk she installed. The motherboard she had was only the dual IDE variety, so she grabbed one of those with the Promise IDE RAID chips on it and set herself up for maximum throughput with the duplicate drive. Saturate that DSL line little girl!

Seriously, I think you just struck on what will now be my leading comment when telling people about this. I personally think the RIAA is just going for the first ones they could find. It's still a really wild internet out there and the actual users within their grasp is probably a lot smaller than they are letting on. Thanks for that spark of deduction.

Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

The RIAA views the average person (customer) as a morally bankrupt thief who will steal at every opportunity, unless they are constantly subjected to campaigns of fear and shame.

Offensive. Not that the RIAA hasn't already earned my lifetime contempt and made it my mission to make sure no one in their cartel ever sees another dime of my money. Then again what is a few dollars in lost music sales when you can shake down single moms and 12-year-olds for thousands.

I read about how they release a subpoena on 'x' who downloaded 'y' songs. Now, what I want to know, is, apart from having a packet sniffer in sharman networks, how can they know what you download. Sure, they can interrogate your ports, if they've reverse engineered the fasttrack protocol then they can maybe list your songs...but how do they know how much your downloading, and how do they know that those songs are even music...they could be someone just f$#@ing with them.
And finally, I thought the fasttrack network operated on a PKI set up, with the heads of the network holding the keys. If so, how the hell are they even interrogating your system unless their also liscencing the keys...in which case, they would have to get them from the same guys that give you kazaa.

I think that the RIAA is targeting sharing, not downloading. A P2P program, like Kazaa, can automatically put downloaded songs into the share directory. So somebody can be sharing files and not realize it. That may have happened with the kid in this story.

The RIAA can find sharers by just using Kazaa, etc., as a client and searching for things to download. When they find a something they download it and note the IP address of the server. With the IP address and the time, they can get the users name from their ISP.

If the RIAA wants to prepare a possible court case, and not just fire-and forget some cease-and-desist letters, they would want to actually
download some songs and compare them to the real CD versions. They only need to download and check a handful for each user, not all that a user is sharing. It would not cost a lot to use some low paid assistants to check songs using a fast forward playback.

I do not think it is possible to hide the address of a server from a client when they are connected by TCP. Only the packet header information is needed, not the packet body.
Encrypting a link does not had its IP address.

If they wanted to go after downloaders, the obvious solution is to setup their own servers and see who downloads. There may be some legal issues doing this.

Fining a poor single mother $2000 USD, sets a pretty good example for the rest of us heathens, right? Wrong. It just makes me angry.

What a terrible thing for such a big company to do!

I think we should all boycott any band affiliated with the RIAA until the RIAA agrees to pay the child's way through the college of her choice. A nice set of CDs from her favourite artists would be an added touch, too.

She's poor and they're picking on her!

The RIAA is just a nasty group of miscreants that I would love to see vanish from history as a failed example of another misuse of economic power.

Is her attorney incompetent or does she even have one? If what she did was criminal, she would be in juvenile detention. If it is civil, as we're told, then she hasn't reached her age of majority. She cannot enter into an implied contract, or has contract law changed to include minors? Why didn't her attorney argue this?

Furthermore, since she hasn't reached her age of majority, why can't her agreement to pay the RIAA be declared non-binding? If her Mom entered into a contractual agreement to pay the RIAA as a result of intimidation, why can't her attorney get that set aside or whatever?

Did RIAA enter the dwelling with or without a search warrant, and stand there and watch her download the files? If not, then what is the evidence or how is the evidence substiantiated? Why didn't her attorney argue this point? Oh, are RIAA employees duly sworn and deputized to perform law enforcement? If so, then why the lawsuit in lieu of handcuffs?

If the downloaded files are to be used under the provision of the Fair Use Clause of the copyright law, then why doesn't her attorney let it go to trial and (after arguing age of majority) argue fair use? Given her age, would such a civil case even go to trial?

Don't feel sorry for this 12 year old. I'm sure people will be sending money to this family on the margins soon, probably much more than $2000. Don't get me wrong, I think they should, and I'll be sending a check for a few bucks when I know an address to send it to. DO feel sorry the six or seventh child they do this to, because they won't have the celebrity of being first that will lead to being bailed out.

I moonlight at a club that plays a lot of live music. Musicians can make a fine living playing live music (or for those who can only make good music in a studio, autograph signings or TV appearances Lip Syncing their hits (ala Britney Spears)). What is the great good done for society having its citizens to spend a huge percentage of their income on music and movies, making a few artists, and more importantly Mega-Media houses, obscenely wealthy? How much better could that money be spent on average? Life without art would be impoverished, but giving recorded music away for free would not end music, nor leave our lives impoverished, nor would all artists starve.

How about sponsoring music you like? How about shareware music? Same for movies. If Spielberg had a list of projects he might produce, given the financial incentive, I would donate to see the project I like produced, then distributed to patrons first who have sponsored it, then offered cheap to non-patrons. Maybe even getting some money back, if the project does really well outside the original patronage. How about $1 HDTV movies over the internet, with a suggested $1-$5 donation per viewer, if they feel they liked what they see? Only quality (OK popular) movies make money past production cost.

I'm all for compensating people fairly for their intellectual property, but I would hardly call most music "intellectual." Granted that's a judgement call, but think of all the scientists and engineers who produce the technology that keeps the 6 billion people on this planet alive, and yet stringing 4 minutes of words together, is what possibly earns somebody millions. Granted not many win that 4 minute lottery, but it does happen, and far more often than the engineer or medical researcher who works his whole life on life saving project gets well compensated. You spoiled-whinny-self-important artists Grow Up, and see what's really important in life. Quit robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

One of my all time favourite bands Einstuerzende Neubauten recently (well in the last year) launched a project asking for funding for a new album (its production costs and so forth.).

The project Neubauten [neubauten.org] offered fans the option of sponsoring them. In turn you got access to video feeds of production and other performances. An exclusive CD, sponsor discounts in upcoming tours (yay!) and access to old and rare material as well as a double CD live album free to download.

They got over twice as much sponsorship as they expected. And as a result are doing phase two (another album and a DVD upon sponsorship).

It can work. New means of artistic creation does work. One doesnt need to be tied to the old systems.

That's probably not their goal - well, not their primary goal. Consider this:

I'm increasingly annoyed about the amount of attention that this whole issue is garnering. Notice how little (OK, none) of the public debate is substantive: whether people should be allowed to download music for listening purposes; whether the interests of media providers outweigh the privacy interests of citizens; whether it's fair to allow the RIAA to charge people $15,000 - or even imprison them, or destroy their computers - in defense of fifty-year-old music tracks. It's just assumed that the RIAA has the right to lash out in order to protect its license to Johnny B. Goode.

Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."

I bet if they had any idea that ~~BrItNeYgUrl91*~ was a 12 year old kid they probably wouldn't have really pursued the case. Would looking like a bunch of shithead monsters, or the whole "we don't let anyone get away with it" display, really be worth it to them?

> Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures.

Several people have suggested setting up a donation fund for her. If we could get her name and do that, and convince non-Slashdotting music downloaders to do the same, even very modest sums of money would quickly add up to a very large sum, attracting the media's attention: "Geeks Help Poor 12yo Pay RIAA Fine".

Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing.

I am dazzled by the lack of knowledge by "Jerry"
(1) The child did not know she was stealing. A website fooled her into thinking she was downloading these songs legally. This is akin to someone setting up a fake checkout in a store. Who would be prosecuted in that case? I would imagine in any court in the land would prosecute the person who put up the fake checkout. She had no intent to break the law, and the website in question had intent to mislead her.
(2) In Jerry's opinion appearently there should be an income limit for owning computers. Tell me, how musch should one make before they are "allowed" a computer? How much did this computer cost? Thrift shops regularly sell 300mhz machines for around $100.00 in my area. Is it O.K. for a poor person to spend $100.00 on something that her child will need to gain job skills in the future? Or should poor kids just play with sticks and Boxes?
(3)This I find in particularly poor taste: The assumtion that public housing families are all on crack. Sorry buddy, not every poor person is on crack, just like not every rich person is a thief.
(4) Finally, how do you know the mother doesn't have a job? The vast majority of assistance recipients do work.
(5) Corporate welfare costs American taxpayers 8-10 times more than poor person welfare. Whos robbing us taxpayers? Poor people who NEED the money, or Rich people who use it to eek out another few million?
Maybe Jerry should spend some time in the real world instead of in his insulated lifestyle.
The American public should be outraged by what the RIAA has done to this family, and I for one willk not buy one more CD until they give this family back their money and issue an apology.
I agree that musicians have a right to protect their creative properties, and that companies have the right to make money from products they produce. But the fact is that the record industry is a Dinosaur wallowing in a mud pit. They need to make a product that the public wants to buy instead of using litigation to attempt to make income.

I haven't donated to the EFF or to any other cause... But this whole thing has me so steamed I'd gladly toss a few bucks to help this unfortunate child and single mother out. Let's make their day and give the RIAA the finger in one fell swoop.

"Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing."

"Or how about: Shoplift $2000 worth of CDs and burn them on the Capitol's steps. I think that would send a message, and garner huge media time."

Um no.

Problem #1: Everybody's being accused of commiting theft as it is. Stealing CD's and burning them, no matter how 'amusing' it'd be, would not do anything but land you in jail. The media would be there to laugh at you.

Problem #2: You'd be hurting the retailer, not the RIAA. Frankly, I still have sympathy for those guys. I'd be disgusted if they became the victim instead of the RIAA.

That's the reason I suggested what I did. If the CD is returned unopened, they can still turn around and sell it. But somewhere they'll have a record that says "on this particular day, we had $n returns." If one day a million dollars of music CD's was purchased and then returned, believe me it'd show up on the radar of each of these retailers. Suddenly some recognition can happen. "Here is one million dollars you could have earned."

This is far more effective than a boycott. If you boycott the RIAA, then they'll claim they lost those sales to piracy.

Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing.

The web site in question that she paid $29.99 for access to all this "free music" is here [thedownloadplace.com]. You should really check out their faq page, quite a funny read seeing as how they basically are charging you for a link to kazaa or a kazaa networked app.

I have heard a few mention a market blackout of all purchases of cds/movies for one month. If this could be acomplished let me sugest the perfect dates for this, It will be probably the most difficult blackout in history to pull off though, if we did we would definately send a message to the music industry, RIAA and everyone else who is listening. December 1 - December 31

That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....

I dunno. I was thinking about this. I asked myself why it was right that I didn't care that people were downloading music, but computers getting hacked and people being sued for millions of dollars(settling for thousands) is so hard for me. I realized that the truth is, the RIAA is ruining peoples lives. Like something out of a nightmare best left in Soviet Russia, the RIAA is indiscriminately cutting people down for a crime most sane people would put on par with jay walking. These lives don't deserve to be ruined for personal non-commerical infringement.

You mean civil behavior don't you? After all, none of these people are being accused of even as much as shoplifting. It's more along the lines of making unauthorized copies of a library book and leaving them on your front steps on a busy city street where anyone can pick up a copy. It's just copyright infringement. The point is, illegal or not, the punishments are absurdly out of proportion to the acts (at least to anyone not on the RIAA payroll).

I grew up watching 60 minutes. Even when I was a young teen and didn't care about politics it was fun to watch the people squirm. Now we're as likely to get a twenty minute fluff piece on Tricia Yearwood, or Chicks with Dixie, or Nicole Kidman, or Sheryl fucking Crow.

I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?

Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...

Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."

I beg to differ. This doesn't endear them in any way. They can't scare people into buying their music, only to not copying it. That doesn't make them any money -- only buying does that.

What the record companies need to do is embrace the new technology, and get rid of the dead meat that can't follow the times (i.e. RIAA). There's multiple ways that the record companies can take advantage of P2P file trading, they just have to blink a few times first and stop holding on to old ways.

How? One such way could be to seed the P2P engines with music files with more than one song in the MPEG-1 container -- the first one being an MP3 (MPEG-1 layer 3) in low quality like 32kbps, allowing people to listen as much as they like, and the second part of the file being a locked high quality version of the same song, requiring unlocking. $0.50 per song per device doesn't sound unreasonable -- that's cheaper than the current $.99 for those who only wants to listen to the song on one device and the same price for those who wants to put it on more than one device.I am certain that many people would welcome and embrace a system like this, where files can be distributed freely, and you can listen before you buy, but only get bad FM quality unless you pay. People with no money, like kids, would be happy that they could listen to music for FREE, while asking their parents to unlock the songs they want. Others can listen to a great variety of music and find something they like, without spending hours in the record store with headsets.Good musicians would benefit, as they can find their way to the market without massive advertising. Record companies would get more surprise hits, and broaden their offering without spending fortunes on physical distribution. Releases would be time coordinated across the world. BUT -- it requires new thinking and embracing the new technology instead of fighting it.

Right now, people loathe the scare tactics of RIAA and the record companies behind. CD sales go down, not up. For a very good reason. Like I said before, you can't scare people into BUYING, just into not copying. And that won't make them a dime.

Do you know what consumers see? They see "Britney Spears CD, $12" and they buy it. They see nothing of the underlying struggle of fair-use rights vs. corporate gluttony, of technology vs. copyright. They will eagerly support a monopoly without care if it keeps feeding them their boy-band fix. Their collective attention span is pitifully short and easily distracted. Just try getting the masses to boycott. The public, in short, is all talk.

Your mother doesn't want to know what copyright is all about; she just wants that new Yanni CD. Your little brother doesn't care that he's feeding a monopoly by buying that 50 Cent CD, and your sister doesn't give a damn that buying the new Justin Timberlake disc is feeding the RIAA's legal-enforcement hit squad. They don't care. They just want their music.

We understand the issues in this struggle, but we are a small minority. You must come to grips with this regrettable fact.

That is why Star Wars is still not on DVD, despite our petition. And that is why the RIAAs don't see the world as we do, and act as we think would be in their best interests. Indeed, if they stopped selling CDs tomorrow and shifted to an online-downloading-per-subscription scheme - even one that's eminently fair and consumer-friendly - you know what the biggest public statement would be? "I don't want to use that Internet thing for music! Where are my CDs?"

(Amazingly, even economists are now coming to grips with the fact that they've overestimated consumer rationalism. The models that they built on such assumptions don't seem to reflect reality... and the hot new trend in economics research is consumer irrationalism. This is not a troll comment - it's an observation by my stepfather, who is a macroeconomist at a local university. This, by the way is good news: I'm hoping that it's the start of a revolution in economic thinking - that consumers can't protect themselves from market consolidation and monopoly abuse... which is why America now has. like, two competitors in every profitable market.)

Bad idea. What if you get a new CD Player? Does that mean you have to buy your whole music collection over at $.50? If it doesn't, then that means there is some way to transfer the ID to another device. Enter device ID piracy. Modded CD-player.

Personally I loathe protected devices like that. Macrovision, CSS, software hacks. All of it shit. My girlfriend actually bought Max Payne, but because of the copy protection, it REFUSED to work on either her DVD Drive or burner. Worked find on my computer. She is scarred. She refuses to buy another PC game because of the experience.

Also, why should I have to pay to play it on other devices? I have a walkman, a CD head unit, a stereo, several computers, and a DVD player. That's some pricey, and not to mention MADDENINGLY complex amount of units to keep track of.

Now you see the problem the RIAA has in "embracing" the digital world. They are stuck believing they have to protect everything, when in reality that protection does absolutely nothing. They really have their work cut out for them. But they can rot. I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

Even worse, popular media never brings up the idea that copyright protection extending 70 years past the creator's death just might be a little more than needed to fulfill the original purpose of copyright -- encouraging creators to share their work.

I'd love to see Tom Brokaw discussing the idea that copyright in this country was permitted only because it was feared that the public domain might never benefit from somebody's efforts.

That's the story you never see in popular media. People assume that because something is illegal, it should not be legal. I'd love to see a large consumer group form with the goal of copyright reform -- that would be an organization to which I'd gladly donate money which is currently not being spent on overpriced CDs, and I'd encourage others to do the same.

I'd like to see a website provide a mechanism for meeting and discussing issues with an easy method of donation. Hell, it'd even be a great way for Slashdot to convince more people to join -- perhaps they should donate 50% of membership fees to one or more OSS or consumer-advocacy group which you could select from a list. It'd be a great way to encourage membership ("Pay for Slashdot, support a worthy cause!"), and it would provide exposure to groups which could do great things with a little more funding.

And the filthiest fact about this fiasco is that the RIAA was in such a position of power, I have very little doubt little Brianna's soundbitable quote about "not hurting the artists I love" was a term of the 'generously' reduced $2,000 settlement (which is of course probably all they could pay anyways).

Obviously they've tried to turn their own prosecution of a little girl into a morality story, where she learns the wrong of her actions, and the victorious and righteous RIAA benevolently show mercy to the poor wayward lamb by reducing billions in punitive damages (losses that they've already theoretically suffered!) to a scanty $2,000. Punishing her is bad enough, but the fact that they are punishing her and making her advocate their zealous position is the most disgusting fact of all.

Apparently you don't understand the following words...The family lives in a city housing projectHousing projects are typically not the domain of people who can afford $2000 fines. In many cases that amount of money could pay the bills for a few months, or maybe a month, either way it is an awful lot of money. To say that it is a slap on the wrist and that it is barely an inconvinience for them is to really be sitting up in some sort of ivory tower wholly unaware that there are people in this country where $2,000 is a big deal.